BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2126 of 2015
R. P. Gupta

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated January 27, 2015 (transferred to SEBI by Ministry
of Corporate Affairs vide reference No. 01/01/2015 Coord (RTI) dated February 17, 2015),
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The
respondent vide letter dated March 2, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed
this appeal dated March 23, 2015 (received at SEBI on March 27, 2015), against the said
response. I have carefully considered the application, the response and the appeal and find that
the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.

2.

From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to the
following query of his application, viz.
"Information regarding coverage of complaints against companies for deliberate violation of corporate governance
norms which also are under investigation by SEBI for violations of prelisting/offer documents conditions."

3.

In his response, the respondent inter alia informed the appellant that the information sought
was not clear and specific; hence, the same could not be construed as information under
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

4.

In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: "The information sought by me is absolutely
clear and specific."

5.

Upon a perusal of the appellant's request for information as made through the
abovementioned query of his application, I find that the information sought was not clear and
specific. In this context, I note that the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs.
CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated August 30, 2012), had held that: "Since
the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact information he wanted, the CPIO could not have provided any
specific information to him. We would like to advise the Appellant that he might like to specify the exact
Page 1 of 2

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

information he wants from the SEBI and prefer a fresh application before the CPIO". Further, in the
matter of Mrs. Bina Saha vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated November 6,
2012), the Hon'ble CIC had held: "It must be remembered that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines
information as a material or virtual record. The citizen has every right to get copies of such records held by any
public authority including the SEBI. However, in order to get the copies of such records, the information seeker
has to specify the details of the records she wants. In fact, section 6(1) of the RTI Act very clearly states that the
information seeker has to specify the particulars of the information sought by him or her". In view of these
observations, I find that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the
information sought is not clear or specific. However, if the appellant still wishes to get
information, he may prefer a fresh application before the respondent specifying clearly the
exact information he wants from SEBI.
6.

In view of the above, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the
respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai
Date: April 17, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz